It’s taken me seventeen cards now to figure out what it is specifically I don’t like about science. Others have said to me I don’t like science before, but I told them they were wrong. I pointed out my sincere appreciation of such great innovations like air conditioning and freeze-dried cheese cultures, PVC pipe and bolt-tolerant hybrid seeds, not to mention the chemical poisons I do actually sometimes use, in dire situations, like for fire ants and poison ivy, my two greatest nature nemeses.
Science is an extremely vast subject area, like religion, where it seems far too simplistic to say you like it, or you don’t like it. More black and white thinking that’s such a mainstay of modern culture.
I said early on in this series I’d go back to the very origins of science, alchemy, or wherever else this ‘Path of the fool’ took me. It’s only now I’ve come across a simple definition of science that shines just the right light on the center of my issue with science. “Science is the study of observable facts.”
I have some observable facts in the sky right now in the form of a cobweb of man-made clouds covering the sky. NASA at once names these “clouds” while still denying the existence of ‘chemtrails,’ which are clearly making said clouds, at least some of them.
Scientists debate about global warming, whether it exists or doesn’t exist, without ever discussing the man-made chemical clouds covering the sky and changing the weather. Some even ignore that weather and climate might be at all related! As an analogy, it would appear that to science the study of a star is so vastly different from the study of a constellation or the galaxy that these distinct and separate fields rarely cross paths. I find this to be jaw-dropping dumb. I must be wrong, please, someone correct me!
The geoengineers themselves say in their global climate manipulation plans, there will be “weather winners and losers.” But they don’t talk about the weather modification that’s been going on for over one hundred years. Totally unrelated apparently. They propose “solar radiation management” SRM, which would require emitting an array of chemicals in the sky to block the sun and reflect radiation back into space. They deny this is a program currently in progress. They give a test date and location in Tucson, Arizona where they will give a shot from a balloon, that’s all.
The dozens of photos I’ve taken of chemical clouds over our property being at least partial emitted by aircraft are impossible, scientifically speaking. The thousands of videos of concerned folks around the globe who are posting all over Youtube and doing all they can to generate awareness and some even remote level of transparency are all just crazy conspiracy theorists, or anti-science wackos, or the most unfortunate combination of the two.
The numbers are staggering, earthly constellations of crazy conspiracy theorists around the globe pointing at the sky, but nothing reaching the airwaves of the mainstream media. How do they manage that? I have some ideas and I’ll be sharing them as the journey moves along.
For now, let me share some of the ones I’ve found impactful just in recent weeks.
Michael Murphy Unconventional Grey documentary interview, Coast to Coast
Chemtrails over France and Corsica, called of course, ‘normal’
JFK clip: weather modification and control
Jim Lee’s fantastic work on all kinds of geoengineering fronts, this one is my favorite but there is much more. https://weathermodificationhistory.com/
“And by the way, it’s not really a moral hazard, it’s more like free-riding on our grandkids.” David Keith, Geoengineer
I wonder, in the climate manipulation agenda, will we be weather winners or losers? How about y’all? How about your grandkids? Will Monsanto’s aluminum and abiotic-resistant seeds be able to feed the entire globe as the chemicals saturate all land, air and water? Do you find the experiments of science worth the cost?